T34/85

From those it can be concluded that 1v1 status quo has remained largely constant, meaning the Balance Team is doing an excellent job of maintaining unilateral balance consistently throughout the patch iterations.

As to why Ost WR remains consistently higher, it can only be speculated on.

Most likely speculation, from a purely ingame coded balqnce changes perspective, is that there remains some specific or set of units/stats/abilities thatbhas not yet been addressed in any of the patch iterations, that enqbles a higher success rate. In any case, it would be something very fundemantal to the games systems, because it has barely budged in either direction, and is something that has not been touched in any of the patches. Such fundamentalsmas tier build times/cost, for example, could fit those criteria.

Also possible that each patchniteration has been so meticulous and perfect, that the intermix of advantage andndisadvantage on both fsctions has remained in almost perfect relative balance, without there being some overarching existing imbalqnce that maintains the OstbWR advantage. This is less likely though, because the patch changes are so complex, that ifnit was just up to them, there would likely be a more prominent "see-saw".

From a player population/sample perspective, the following are valid speculations:
A) That Ost is more often chosen by better players.
B) That Ost performs better in this high tier bracket, in the hands of high tier players.

From a statistics perspective, the following are valid perspectives:
A) That the ladder WR remains consistent, because the ladder is still skewed by previous players who sit on the ladder, with a WR they achieved far earlier in the patch process, and which is not representative of current balance.
B) Ladder decay has not yet set in, meaning the overall WR ratings are more resistant to the change patches have caused in balance, and are not representing actual current WR accurately.
C) In order to have absolutely reliable and representative WR stats for THIS patch iteration, we would need the WRmthat has occures ONLY AFTER THE LAST PATCH. These numbers are not that. They are systemically not representstive of that.

Infact this last point is the most important of all, and one that makes all the previous ones questionable.

These WR ratings have historical "baggage" that makes it invalid as an objective tool for evaluating actual current WR since the last patch.

Only way we could know for sure what actual WR is atm, is if Relic released specific figures for those wins and losses that have occured AFTER the last patch. These ones include win/loss from EVERY patch, in one lump and statistically skewed sum.

Imo, the ladder has too much baggage to conclude from those WR anything meaningful.
Its not fluctuating enough. There should have been much wider swingsnthan there have been in those stats throughoutnthe patches. Its old stats and lack of decay that is keeping it "looking" stable.

(I also use a script that hides Nullist posts if anybody's interested )

Can I have it?

Interesting numbers. Top 200 players at 1v1 is mostly the same, around 4%-5%.

Also interesting that 2v2's gap narrows. Which may indicate issues with Soviet tech trees being addressed a bit in 2v2. That's a different topic though.

However, 3v3 and 4v4's gap jumps to a much more significant 8.2% and 15.8% gap respectively.

Overall, I think that Germans aren't too much more powerful, just easier to use... like the dark side of the force.

The developers clearly intended this. However, their zeal in trying to promote this is missing out on some historical and gameplay facts. Which is why the T-34/85 isn't as good as a Panzer 4. The devs are of the mindset that everything the Soviets have should be in some major way worse than what Germans have, as such they would have to micro it more to get best use.

The problem is, in terms of gameplay that scheme doesn't really work to require one side to always require more micro in every circumstance.

In terms of history, the soviets eventually figured it out. Heck, the T-34/85 was a direct response to German heavy armor superiority when they finally figured it out.

Although, I suppose the change to the MG42 is an example of the devs realizing this and making Germans require a bit more micro of their own.

Interesting numbers. Top 200 players at 1v1 is mostly the same, around 4%-5%.

Also interesting that 2v2's gap narrows. Which may indicate issues with Soviet tech trees being addressed a bit in 2v2. That's a different topic though.

However, 3v3 and 4v4's gap jumps to a much more significant 8.2% and 15.8% gap respectively.

Overall, I think that Germans aren't too much more powerful, just easier to use... like the dark side of the force.

The problem is, in terms of gameplay that scheme doesn't really work to require one side to always require more micro in every circumstance.

In terms of history, the soviets eventually figured it out. Heck, the T-34/85 was a direct response to German heavy armor superiority when they finally figured it out.

I'd prefer top 25 to top50 stats,in vCOH history those are the best players to utilize the tactics or let's say the other way, the player tends to abuse the most recent OP units(tactics) into action.

Well, as for T-34/85, I hope relic could realize it's the best medium tank which allied force can provide to their troops from late 1943.

I have been gathering these for a while with a simple script (I also use a script that hides Nullist posts if anybody's interested )

Don't give it away!

I am pretty sure you can sell it as a DLC faster than Relic can sell commanders.

I´m against a penetration increase on the T-34/85. That might fix the problem versus the Panzer IV but totally neglects the balance versus other vehicles. The Panther gets penetrated often enough frontally atm. increasing the chance of this bullocks to happen is ridiculous.

Price decrease and more flexibility in form of single call-ins or global upgrades for the T-34/85. I don´t want to see them parked in front of a Panther and see them come out on top.

Don't give it away!

I am pretty sure you can sell it as a DLC faster than Relic can sell commanders.

Even though I giggled like a girl reading this, I am starting to respect some of his latest less bias posts.

Even though I giggled like a girl reading this, I am starting to respect some of his latest less bias posts.

Sorry to say, it's all calculated. Just read some of his statements in the su85 and mg big topics and you will know why.

I´m against a penetration increase on the T-34/85. That might fix the problem versus the Panzer IV but totally neglects the balance versus other vehicles. The Panther gets penetrated often enough frontally atm. increasing the chance of this bullocks to happen is ridiculous.

It doesn't, even the SU85 with 170 penetration doesn't penetrate the panther front armor (270) that well.

Hence the words "latest" and "less biased" were used

I said SU85 needed a speed nerf. Devs seem to have thought the same, wince thatmis what happened.
I specifically suggested lowering speed while Coned. When that wasnt sufficient, as I suspected it might not be, I suggested a further native speed reduction, which also was the Devs choice in a second nerf.

Inalso helped draw attention to SU85s sniping PaKs, which a huge number of Sov players resolutely insisted jever hwppened, despite some diligent posters providing even several videos to demonstate it. That too, was changed.

Imspokemthe same about the KV8s retreat wiping potential, alongside posters who, again, in the face of some Sov players rewolute insisntence nthat it "it does not happen", with videos to prove it and that "KV8" was fine. That too, has now been correctly adjusted.

I never disagreed about MH42 suppression rate being too high. I simply maintained and made clear the disparity in respective HMG unit survival, which is still disparate. Some people where so wound up in their Sov perspective, they tried to argue that Maxim survival was lower than MG42, which is patently false. Relwtive suppression rates where the problem Sov faced, not a survival disparity, though some people tried to shoehorn that in, when that wasnt the pressing balance issue at all, and which infact was in favor of Sov.

Inwas also one of the guys pointing out that Ost needed atleast a 4th Support team member, which eventually was implemented. Can you imagine/remember that Ost teams, really, seriously, only had 3 men? Seems improbale now, but it was indeed the case. The disparity still exists, but it provides opportunity to counterbalance Support teams performwnce asymmetrically against that existing disparity, so its not all bad.

On T34/85s, Im the guy who first here suggested an upgun alternative. I even lobbied the suggestion in streams to get it disseminated. Unfortunately t34/85 has not yet been addressed, but ive been heremfrom the startmtrying to get awareness up about a possible solutionnto an understated problem.

You are misrepresenting my posts. Whether that is because you misread or misinterpreted them, I dont know, but nonetheless, I never took the positions you claim I did.

It's working, I cant see his posts anymore unless I disable the script!

tuvok, you are my hero!

I said SU85 needed a speed nerf. Devs seem to have thought the same, wince thatmis what happened.
I specifically suggested lowering speed while Coned. When that wasnt sufficient, as I suspected it might not be, I suggested a further native speed reduction, which also was the Devs choice in a second nerf.

I never disagreed about MH42 suppression rate being too high. I simply maintained and made clear the disparity in respective HMG unit survival, which is still disparate. Some people where so wound up in their Sov perspective, they tried to argue that Maxim survival was lower than MG42, which is patently false. Relwtive suppression rates where the problem Sov faced, not a survival disparity, though some people tried to shoehorn that in, when that wasnt the pressing balance issue at all, and which infact was in favor of Sov.

Inwas also one of the guys pointing out that Ost needed atleast a 4th Support team member, which eventually was implemented. Can you imagine/remember that Ost teams, really, seriously, only had 3 men? Seems improbale now, but it was indeed the case. The disparity still exists, but it provides opportunity to counterbalance Support teams performwnce asymmetrically against that existing disparity, so its not all bad.

You are misrepresenting my posts. Whether that is because you misread or misinterpreted them, I dont know, but nonetheless, I never took the positions you claim I did.

Blah blah blah blah blah.

Do you realize that no one pays attention anymore? Like listening to a defense attorney; It isn't that anything you say is de facto biased, but that at this point everyone knows your bias and that everything you say is geared towards that bias. So even your reasonable points are seen as nothing more than an attempt at making your fanboi opinion merely "sound" reasonable.

Youd be surprised how many people do read my posts, and appreciate them, as I do theirs.
I dont need or expect every jack on the boards to agree with me.

As far as having deliberate and overt bias in their posts, I woulsnt count myself even into the top ten offenders on that account, and even if I do it unknowingly because my sov experience is negligablel its not deliberate, and I defer to the positions of REASONABLE Sov players to tell me how it is.

If, when, I demonstrate obvious bias, then by all means, come at me bro, on that point.
But that hasnt happened yet. And unless you can show where it has, Id appreciate if you stopped with the libel and unjustified character assassination.

Nobody is forcing you to read my posts, or to comment on them, or to me.
If you dont like them, or me, for whatever reason, feel free to not read them or respond to them.

If I sound likena defence attorney, its for two reasons:
1) I attended two years at law school
2) Because I am repeatedly, publically, forced to defend myself (both personally and on my posts) against unfounded and false allegations. What do you expect me to do, bend over and take it? Hell no.

Ontopic:

I recommend a per unit upgun option on t34s at about 100munis, to get PIV level penetration and reload rate. Also reduces AoE to PIVlevels, to effectively specialise the unit for AT at the expense of the native t34s excellent AI.

I dont think this threatens PIV own value, since it still has far better armor ,(hp?) and dmg.
It may possibly be necessary to remove Ram on the upgun, but with the recent Ram changes, Im leaning towards it not being necessary to remove them. Especially as t34/85, in their current form, have that anyways, so more consistent to keep it.

As to the 2 Commanders with the double T34/85 call-ins, in conjunction with the above, I recommend they simply get their AT/AI adjusted as above, and retain the same price. The "advantage" of the call-in will then be in it primarily saving you about 200 munis in upgrades, as offset by the very real detractsnt of having to save up the huge MP/Fuel required to bring them in, which leaves you hanging in the interim. As they come in with the improved maingun, they will hit the field capable of the AT required of them, per the changes in the paragraph above.

Tertiary benefit being that ANY Commanser can upgun. These Commanders, however, save 200 muni to field the same net result a bit later ingame + , as is now, they wont need the building to do so.

Ontopic:

I recommend a per unit upgun option on t34s at about 100munis, to get PIV level penetration and reload rate. Also reduces AoE to PIVlevels, to effectively specialise the unit for AT at the expense of the native t34s excellent AI.

I dont think this threatens PIV own value, since it still has far better armor ,(hp?) and dmg.
It may possibly be necessary to remove Ram on the upgun, but with the recent Ram changes, Im leaning towards it not being necessary to remove them. Especially as t34/85, in their current form, have that anyways, so more consistent to keep it.

As to the 2 Commanders with the double T34/85 call-ins, in conjunction with the above, I recommend they simply get their AT/AI adjusted as above, and retain the same price. The "advantage" of the call-in will then be in it primarily saving you about 200 munis in upgrades, as offset by the very real detractsnt of having to save up the huge MP/Fuel required to bring them in, which leaves you hanging in the interim. As they come in with the improved maingun, they will hit the field capable of the AT required of them, per the changes in the paragraph above.

Tertiary benefit being that ANY Commanser can upgun. These Commanders, however, save 200 muni to field the same net result a bit later ingame + , as is now, they wont need the building to do so.

I have to agree that the munition based upgrade would be excellent however I think that the 76 mm gun should be upgraded with AP ammunition instead of a new cannon thus allowing the penetration to drastically increase without throwing the damage up too high 100 Munitions would be a fair asking price for new ammo which would do substantially worse against infantry. (This ammuntion would now be the standard load in T-34s slowing the ROF to 6 but increasing the penetration to around 120)

As for the T34-85 with the improved chassis and increased armor it could certainly use a increase in ROF (lets say to 6.5) and a little more penetration (lets say 25) to make it a viable call in and sacrificing some AI capability and rear armor would be more than fine with me to facilitate this as I feel I have plenty of ways to deal with infantry already when using this commander.

Users here give Nullist a lot of crap for his playtime, but in reality he has more knowledge about the game than most of the users hating on him. Yes, he has a low amount of played games, but you can tell that he keeps up to date due to the amount of knowledge he posses about the game. I don't know how, but perhaps he watches a lot of casts or has a second account to play (like me). Or maybe he likes procrastinating at work like me and that's why he has a lot of posts.

Also, many of you guys call him a german fanboy, but in reality he suggested a lot of changes that Relic implemented during closed beta and 500 player exclusive stress test, which significantly buffed balanced the soviet faction again.

-Remember the ridiculous over-powered panthers during the closed beta and they got righteously fixed without a over-nerf. You know who proposed that idea, Nullist, even though german players (even Dane) thought they were balanced.

Remember the whole call in unit change, remember who kept recommending it? That's right Nullist also Marcus... which significantly fixed Soviet's teching system and made their doctrines actually useful.

Remember who was concerned with Maxim spam at the time before they were abused and that period where molotovs were overpowered (Molotov Opness only occured in the 500 player beta)... That's right Nullist.

I can go on, and he had good points defending himself as well.

You guys give him a lot of crap, even though he is the top 5 users who influenced Relic's balance changes during the beta. Also unlike other users, he doesn't suggest overkill nerfs. Yes, he does occasionally bring up player's ladder, but that's because he wants to see players most played game type since 4 vs 4 will never be balanced.

Back to the topic. I would like to see the T34-85 lose some of its anti-infantry damage and compensate it by making it better at anti-tank. Basically give it Piercing shells instead of explosive shells and then make it's fuel cheaper. Make it's reload time faster and make it a bit faster in speed. I like Nullist's idea but Relic said they will never implement that.

i think you're giving the guy too much credit.

i think you're giving the guy too much credit.

and I think using scripts to block someone from contributing to the forums you see is pretty immature in itself. I havent seen flames in a while from him and the points he raises are valid. Ignoring an argument doesnt make it disappear

That said he cant claim credit for relic nerfing su85s, I think most people on earth were on board for that one

The unsung hero of company of heroes, the watchful protector of coh2.org, the martyr of balance!

I really don't want the T-34/85 to be equal to the Panther. The reality was that only the turret and gun was upgraded, the hull was mostly the same.

However, the additions to the turret were substantial, it had a turret basket, positions for loaders, commander, and gunner, so a 3 man turret. In the 76 version, they would stand on top of ammo boxes to reach the 2 man turret controls. T-34 crews would steal the seats out of American supplied Shermans.

It doesn't take crack German training to load a gun quickly.

I really don't want the T-34/85 to be equal to the Panther. The reality was that only the turret and gun was upgraded, the hull was mostly the same.

However, the additions to the turret were substantial, it had a turret basket, positions for loaders, commander, and gunner, so a 3 man turret. In the 76 version, they would stand on top of ammo boxes to reach the 2 man turret controls. T-34 crews would steal the seats out of American supplied Shermans.

It doesn't take crack German training to load a gun quickly.

No one is saying that it should be a panther, but it should put a little fear into one. It should do enough damage that(if supported) can kill one.